Rifle Scopes Hard use Recce carbine optic...stumped.

[M1Viking]

Hey guys, not exactly new here, but I haven't posted in so long that I had to make a new account (forgot my password like a dope.) Anyways, meat and potatoes!

I have built a BCM/franken recce carbine for myself to fulfill the function of marksman in my team, as well as an in-expensive training tool for long shots on steel. (as opposed to running .308, anyways.) I need to push to 800m, and quite frankly, my 4x32 ACOG, while incredibly robust, is not up to the task... not to mention moot for practicing MOA ranging and holdovers. My issue is finding a balance between weight and rigidity with the options I desire. This optic, paired with an aimpoint T-1 at the 45º offset, needs to be able to handle the rigors of CQB, force on force, and other hard use activities, while not being so heavy as to make my weapon unpointable up close.

Unfortunately rules out USOptics (whom I love, but yeah... like bolting an Abrams to your system.)

So let the suggestions and homework begin!

Budget:$3000, preferably under $2k, though.
Preferences/requirements: ??-10x variable, FFP, MOA reticle with matching knobs, zerostop a plus, illumination a plus. as light as can be while still being at home on hard use milspec rifle in LaRue SBR mount.

Thank you for your time!

 

[Christopher Rance]

Nightforce NXS compact line of scopes.

 

[HD1911]

Nightforce NXS compact line of scopes.

this. you can close the thread now

 

[M1Viking]

Nightforce NXS compact line of scopes.

My only issue with this is a lack of FFP... quite disappointed in Nightforce about that, unless my research has lead me astray?

 

[Guest]

I would also look at the SWFA SS 1-6x24 HD or Vortex 1-6x24 Razor HD GenII

 

[M1Viking]

I would also look at the SWFA SS 1-6x24 HD or Vortex 1-6x24 Razor HD GenII

I have a SWFA SS10x42 on one of my remingtons that im quite happy with, and I was always curious as to the build/glass quality of the other models they offer

 

[Guest]

I dont have the scope but have been told by many that do that they love it and the glass is clear.

 

[Steiner Optics]

May want to wait and see what Steiner and Burris are debuting at shot...otherwise pretty much your only option is a Vortex 2.5-10...and i am unsure if that is available with an moa reticle.

I'm not sure what Burris is launching but Steiner won't have anything that fits the bill.

 

[M1Viking]

I have to say, though lacking zero stop and illumination(both preferences and not requirements like the FFP, lol) the SS 3-9x42 and the SS 3-15x42 both look extremely interesting... would have to learn Mils, but im not too old a dog for new tricks.

 

[HD1911]

do u feel FFP is necessary in a lower powered variable scope?

 

[M1Viking]

I would vastly prefer it, yes... I want my reticle measurements correct at all settings and im willing to pay for it, lol

 

[Guest]

I have to say, though lacking zero stop and illumination(both preferences and not requirements like the FFP, lol) the SS 3-9x42 and the SS 3-15x42 both look extremely interesting... would have to learn Mils, but im not too old a dog for new tricks.

I took a hard look at the SWFA SS 1-6 HD and SWFA SS 3-15x42 and was going to pull the trigger until I was talked into a Leupold Mark 4 3.5-10x40 which is currently on my Recce. Great scope, no issues, just wish I had that little bit more magnification.

 

[badshot338]

Schmidt & Bender makes a pretty nice 1-8 that may fit the bill accept it isn't offered with an MOA based reticle.. I looked at the USO 1-8 and I'm not too impressed with it. From what I've looked up, Vortex may be the closest option but the resolution on the 2.5-10x32 is really lousy.

This has got me thinking. Are there any really great 1-8 or 2-10 or so optics that are compact out there in a first focal plane configuration with an MOA reticle? If not, that's kind of disappointing...

 

[Christopher Rance]

Honestly, look into the mark 6 3-18. Its light, compact and has a few good reticles that might suit your need. It pairs real well with a micro t-1.

 

[lifebreath]

Sure would open a bunch of options switching to a mil-based system. FFP, MOA reticle and knobs and hard-use robust ... hmmm - got nothing but USO or maybe some custom Leupold if they were willing.

 

[jerseymike]

is this for a work gun or a range gun?

 

[jerseymike]

would you actually engage someone at 800m? providing that you're using this for a DM roll

 

[wrhunter]

Bushnell 1-8.5x24 elite tactical. FFP / illuminated, mil/mil. And you may find that you don't need the additional red dot.

 

[SmimL7]

I would vastly prefer it, yes... I want my reticle measurements correct at all settings and im willing to pay for it, lol

Something to think about, in a lower magnification range with an FFP, the reticle subtentions will be unusable if you can see them at all. It has always seemed like a waist to offer an FFP scope in this magnification range.

 

[HD1911]

Something to think about, in a lower magnification range with an FFP, the reticle subtentions will be unusable if you can see them at all. It has always seemed like a waist to offer an FFP scope in this magnification range.

exactly....I've never had to utilize the features on a FFP Reticle under 8x...nor would I want to since the reticle subtensions are so small and hard to pick up, atleast for me anyways.

IMHO a 3.5-10 Leupold or a NF 2.5-10 would do everything you'd need it to do, especially in conjuction with a micro red dot sight, should you so desire.

And MIL ain't hard to learn at all....what u don't know, you don't know. So it would be helpful to drop any preconceived notions you may have about it. Someone (a good teacher) could have you spun up in an afternoon at the Range on it....you can call me if you need help understanding it, and I'd be happy to help ya....there are also many good threads on here, to teach the Fundamentals of it.

if your gonna go first focal plane in a wider magnification spread while staying robust and compact, the Mark 6 3-18 as mentioned above, would def. be worth looking into. As would the new Bushnell 3-12 that George from GAP was mentioning in the new thread about them.

And, if you're gonna go ahead and drop serious coin on a Leupold Mark 8 1-8, I wouldn't spend even more money and add more weight to try and also use a micro red dot....that is why 1 - whatever magnification are becoming more common.

 

[Singlestack_Wonder]

If this is for a SHTF role, stick with proven military grade optics (i.e. Nightforce, U.S. Optics, Leupold Tactical (MK8, MK6), S&B, etc.). Don't risk failure with Bushnell, Vortex, SWFA, etc.

 

[mdmp5]

When people mentioned nightforce compact, is that including the 2.5-10x32 or 42? I run a 5.5-22x56 on my precision AR, but yes, it is a little big. My first choice for your application would be the 2.5-10x42. I really dig that piece.

 

[HD1911]

When people mentioned nightforce compact, is that including the 2.5-10x32 or 42? I run a 5.5-22x56 on my precision AR, but yes, it is a little big. My first choice for your application would be the 2.5-10x42. I really dig that piece.

yes NF 1-4 and any of the NF 2.5-10.

Also forgot to mention that the IOR 2.5-10x42 is a Viable option as well.

 

[Kamkaze]

Personally I would contact Leupold and tell them your needs, and with their LE/MIL pricing I think you will easily stay within your budget if they have an MOA option for you, if not I highly consider switching to mils.

 

[Crosshair]

I haven't got to play with this one yet, but I have kind of been lusting after it lately: IOR 1-10x26 Eliminator Tactical 35mm Rifle Scope

It's a true 1x on the bottom, which rocks for CQB. It is dual focal plane with a very well thought out reticle. Not too awful heavy at 28 oz... And built like a tank.

 

[Victory]

CQBSS hands down. It will handle anything you can throw at it and keep ticking. Covers all of your magnification requirements, and can be ran while clearing rooms, or with helmet mounted NV on patrols. Not sure what the price point is now, I got mine before I headed to Astan in 2010. I'm sure leupolds Mil/LEO program has it a lot lower now than what I bought mine for. A year with it being banged, blown up, dropped, dragged and used daily made me a believer. I planned on selling it when I returned to recoup some of the money spent on it. It is now the last thing I would ever sell.

 

[19Scout77]

Have you considered using your glass budget to purchase a weapon that is appropriate for 800 yard engagements?

 

[30calDeath]

Honestly, look into the mark 6 3-18. Its light, compact and has a few good reticles that might suit your need. It pairs real well with a micro t-1.

This is what I am running on my 16" gas gun. I have the T1 for close shots and the Mark6 3-18x for out to 800 or so. I am really digging the MK6/T1 combo set in a Spuhr mount.

 

[30calDeath]

Also to add, if you are going with a T1 for CQB type duties dont get any 1x-whatever scopes. Its redundant and not necessary IMO.

 

[Virgil072]

Really depends on what your doing, how capable your system is at that distance, and what ammunition you have access to. If its strictly duty ammo and not heavier match grade ammunition, 800m is going to be difficult to attain consistently no matter how large your scope is. What is your AO like? 6-10x will get you out to 800 easily, but with a normal red dot I've not encountered much of a problem hitting targets at 400-500 with relative ease and good ammunition. An SPR might be more appropriate for this kind of work if 800m is indeed a capability you have encountered the need for and not just a "want" on a weapons bucket list. Not saying 800m and 5.56 isn't totally doable, but there are weapons that would be better suited for the task. As far as optics go, realize that your gonna hump it, and generally if your the one not only shooting a fair distance (300-600m) but also a chance you could close the distance then your probably better off sticking with a low powered variable (1-4, 1-6x, or even an Elcan). If you indeed assuming a DM position and not just desiring the capability then obvious start with 10x and proven brands. As far as reticle, mils aren't a bad option and perfer them so I'm not buying an optic that is specifically calibrated to one caliber/grain weight. An offset micro red dot (T1 if its truly for a hard use gun) is an option but presents another issue with respect to training and having two sight pictures to chose from. After having briefly worked with the ACOG/Doctor combo I realized that I was still going for the ACOG at close range, so this presents a training issue.

Mission drives the gear train, not the other way around. I've got essentially the same gun, and my tried and true T1 4MOA that has seen a ton of rounds both on and off duty is staying on it. If I had to do it again, I'd get a 2 MOA dot to give me a finer Aimpoint.

Curious- Why MOA reticle specifically? Not many scope makers give you an MOA reticle option.

 

[1slow01z71]

As others said, FFP is not needed in this magnification range. Ive got the 2.5-10x32 vortex and while it is nice the subtensions arent useable below about 7x. Its on my 300blk AR and the only reason I could see using the subtensions below 10x is when its getting too dark to use 10x. With your budget a better quality scope will have better glass and allow you to shoot longer at dusk at 10x than some of the lesser FFP options. Id go nightforce 2.5-10 without a doubt. The biggest decision for me would be x32 or x42 on the objective.

 

[sinister]

The requirements you've outlined are incredibly vague.

My son hammers E-types to 750 with an ACOG on a 16-inch mid-length carbine, shooting 77s. Side-mounted irons or a T-1 will handle anything close.

There are a few combat-proven 1-4 through 3-9 options, some reasonably priced, some very expensive.

Two to start with would be a Schmidt-Bender Short Dot with CQB reticle or a Leupold MR/T. You can quickly go over your $3,000 limit if buying newer-tech scopes at retail, even with an industry discount.

 

[badshot338]

A really good RECCE carbine is capable of shooting good groups at 800 meters with a good shooter. Ive seen Larue PredatAR's with 16" barrels consistently ring 10 inch steel plates at 1000 yards. Heck, there have been successful engagements on bad guys in Afghanistan at 800 meters with Mk 12 Mod 1's with MK 262 Mod 1 ammo more than once.

 

[badshot338]

Do you really HAVE to have an MOA/MOA configuration? If you were willing to go to Mil's your options would greatly expand.

 

[Victory]

Whoa, guess I missed the MOA/MOA thing, disregard the CQBSS suggestion.

 

[gyz77]

CQBSS H27D. I love mine on my ECC.

 

[Virgil072]

BadShot- I realize this, however I was speaking more about the particular firearm he has (BCM Recce, USGI Profile, CHF, Chromed Lined), not a PredatOBR with a heavy profile, match grade barrel. While the BCM stuff is exceedingly good, and 800m is indeed doable for a 16 inch AR. A SPR is again, a match barrel. When I hear "Recce" I think the Crane guns, not just a 16 inch pattern variety AR.

Still baffled by the MOA/MOA thing.

 

[badshot338]

Virgil - Completely understood and I agree that this cannot be done with a run of he mill 16" AR. My primary point, and I may not have been clear, was that they distance is doable with a great gun.

Everyone has their preference in Mil's or MOA. There lack of options in MOA configurations is one of the reasons I went to Mil's.

 

[M1Viking]

Thank you guys! This thread is chock-full of very useful information now! The main lesson i believe I will take away from this is that I need to learn me some mils, haha. No problem... my preference for MOA is simply because it's the one I learned on, and i was (unfortunately) not taught metric all those years ago in school as my main system and my mind still defaults to yard/feet/inches. But we cannot remain absolute, right? And I think I understand your point on the FFP arguments, to be honest, I've only used the feature in higher-magnification optics... really liked it in them, but even they seemed a little tiny at low power. I have a lot of homework to do!

 

[HD1911]

Thank you guys! This thread is chock-full of very useful information now! The main lesson i believe I will take away from this is that I need to learn me some mils, haha. No problem... my preference for MOA is simply because it's the one I learned on, and i was (unfortunately) not taught metric all those years ago in school as my main system and my mind still defaults to yard/feet/inches. But we cannot remain absolute, right? And I think I understand your point on the FFP arguments, to be honest, I've only used the feature in higher-magnification optics... really liked it in them, but even they seemed a little tiny at low power. I have a lot of homework to do!

Just to maybe comfort you a little and tell you that it will all be ok, I didn't grow up really learning anything Metric either, other than the Decimal system.

You'll be fine. If you really want to learn it, you'll do just fine. You'll most likely even have an epiphany and think, why in the world did I take so long to switch?

Holler at me via PM with any questions... I don't know jack squat compared to many others on this site, but I'm confident I could help get you started and sent in the right direction.

Try this out for starters:

ShooterReady

8541 Tactical *Please READ*

8541 Tactical - Mildot Range Estimation

8541 Tactical - Reticle Ranging Formulas by Linden B. (Lindy) Sisk

 

[Jaydee1445]

Personally I would contact Leupold and tell them your needs, and with their LE/MIL pricing I think you will easily stay within your budget if they have an MOA option for you, if not I highly consider switching to mils.

This^
I'm not a professional just a FNG but I have 2 Mark 6s on order. 6-1 CMR_W for the 16" and a 3-18 H-9 with a Delta Point @2 O'clock for the white Oak SPR. I currently am running an ACOG with a Fast Fire and the concept works well for me to transition from close to far. The H-59 has a target release date sometime in January and I'll post an amateur review of both.
With LE/MIL pricing IMHO think Leupold is the smart choice.
Since you have to learn a new system research Horus. Lots of naysayers here but on paper and in video it makes sense to me. YMMV
Durability is still a bit unknown but here is quote from military time review

Durability recap: The scope took an hour ride sliding around the back of a metal pickup truck bed, two waist-level drops while mounted on a rifle, 24 hours in a salt water tank. Result: No damage.

Exclusive Review: Leupold Mark 6 1-6x20mm Riflescope | Military Times GearScout

 

[badshot338]

I have a lot of AR's that are loosely based off military configurations. MK18 Mod 1 & 2's, Mk12's RECCE's and so on. My personal RECCE "type" is topped with an NF2.5-10x24 with a Mil-Dot and Mil turrets. I have a cat tail on it and when I need to range or use the reticle for spotting, I just grab the cat tail quickly and slam it over to the left to bring me to 10x. I don't really bother any more than that. It is actually pretty easy and natural once you get the hang of it. If I were to recommend something, I kind of have a hard on for NF scopes because they have served me so well in the passed. Their 2.5-10x32 is a great scope and the objective size is small enough that you don't have to dick with a parallax adjustment. If you wanted to stick with minutes of angle, you could get an MOA/MOA model. If you wanted to switch to Mil's, that they offer that.

Like I said before. I used to shoot MOA but switched to Mil's when I got tired of dealing with limited options on the market. All it took was the investment of replacing my existing scopes with Mil models and/or mod-ing them to Mil/Mil configurations and switching my rangefinder to range in meters. Then I practiced with the ranging formula with Mil reticles in meters and I was off to the races. It was fairly seamless. It's not as hard to switch as people think. You just have to start shooting in meters.

 

[sawman556]

 

[rookie101]

Unless I am seriously mistaken Mils are not 'metric'. Both mil and moa are radial measurements and there are formulas to use that can give you yards, feet, meters whatever you are comfortable with. The formulas are fairly simple to memorize and I don't think you should be intimidated by learning something new. After all knowledge is power. There are some NSSF videos that are short (about ten to twenty minutes), that are excellent in learning to understand mils and moa. Someone more computer savvy then me will maybe post those links for you.

 

[HD1911]

Unless I am seriously mistaken Mils are not 'metric'. Both mil and moa are radial measurements and there are formulas to use that can give you yards, feet, meters whatever you are comfortable with. The formulas are fairly simple to memorize and I don't think you should be intimidated by learning something new. After all knowledge is power. There are some NSSF videos that are short (about ten to twenty minutes), that are excellent in learning to understand mils and moa. Someone more computer savvy then me will maybe post those links for you.

Correct, Milliradian is not Metric. That is the most common, and erroneous preconcieved notion.

Mils are able to be used, wether measuring distance in: Yards/Meters/Inches etc.

I provided links above (Post #40), for those of you that are actually interested in doing your homework and are willing to actually study the subject and learn for yourselves.

There are numerous Topics/Threads/Articles of the very subject, all over the internet.

 

[badshot338]

I find Mil reticles to have an easier equation of ranging when ranging in meters. You can range in yards with one and you can range in meters with an MOA reticle. But I generalize it to shooters who shoot in meters to use Mil reticles and those who shoot in yards to use MOA reticles.

 

[HD1911]

I find Mil reticles to have an easier equation of ranging when ranging in meters. You can range in yards with one and you can range in meters with an MOA reticle. But I generalize it to shooters who shoot in meters to use Mil reticles and those who shoot in yards to use MOA reticles.

I can understand where you're coming from. I guess I've just never really had the need to use Meters for Distance Measurement in the Shooting that I've done. Always used Yards, thus far.

I just try and remember a few key things:

1 MIL is 3.6" @ 100 Yards
.1 MIL is .36" @ 100 Yards
.1 MIL is .72" @ 200 Yards

Want to know what .1 MIL is worth, in Inches, @ 583 Yards? If we know that .1 MIL (1 click of your Turret) @ 100 Yards = .36", then we can simply do .36" x 5.83, which gives us 2.09" So, basically, 1 Click on your Scope moves the Point Of Impact roughly 2", at a Distance of 583 Yards

Ranging? Height of Target (or Width), in Inches, Multiplied times 27.78 (27.778 for those who are Technical) which is our Constant, then Divided by our Reticle Measurement, in MILs = Distance to Target in Yards

72" Man x 27.78
-----------------------
2.5 Mils = 800 Yards to Target


Hope this helps some of ya'll out there!

 

[badshot338]

This is great info, especially when the shooter is trying to judge the size of the target at a known distance.

When I'm shooting, I completely leave out the size value of the target in inches of and metric form of measurement. I just like at the world in angle value. For instance, I just look at a target as an X MOA or Y mil target. Silhouettes are about a Mil at 1000 meters and so on.

Back to the OP's initial inquiry; I think switching to Mil's may award you more options and allow you to compromise less on what will fit your needs.